Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Changing Ownership?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 PantherProfessor

PantherProfessor

    Fingers Crossed

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 413 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:02 AM

I was talking with a co-worker and fellow panther fan about all the changes going down recently, and he made a good point. He asked me if i thought Richardson was setting the team up for a sale. I thought that was crazy and didnt think much about it, JR loves this team and this city.

But as we continued to talk it made me wonder if this is a possible plan "B" in case things go bad during the owner / player negotiations.


Lets look at some recent events:

1. JR's sons are now out of the picture, who will interit the team?

2. JR has had some serious health issues of late, and maybe the stress of the team is becoming too much for him. add on the labor agreement issues and that is a lot to handle.

3. Fox and co. in a "lame duck" situation, meaning a new owner can start with a clean slate if a sale was to take place. new coach and GM to pick as they wish.

4. Uncertainty at QB. These guys are normally the face of your franchise, yes Jake's time here was done. But, as intrenched as he was with this team's short history, it was a tough move to make. Even keeping him around as a back-up would have been suitable, and Jake seemed ok with that in his farewell speech. But for a possible new owner, his salary and productivity did not match and would be a hard thing to sell someone on. Again, a new owner could have a new coach, and QB to start fresh if they desired.

5. Recent roster purge. Yes, most of these guys probably needed to go, and i agree with the moves for the most part. But, this also cleans the books of any high salary players, and makes the roster flexible for future re-signings or trades. I also wonder if this has made our defense flexible to the point of where a 3-4 defense could be installed by adding a few different players along the D-line.

6. Looming lockout in 2011. Is JR interested in losing that much money on a small market team if the lockout was to happen? could this also be a good time for a team to change ownership since there is no football?


personally i do not think this would happen, but to me these are interesting points of discussion. but i do think these moves have made the team a little more desireable for a potential buyer to have a clean slate and mold the team in whichever way they would chose.

#2 SmootsDaddy89

SmootsDaddy89

    Just Say No To Boo

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,969 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:03 AM

Sarah Palin is buying the team and taking it to Alaska.

#3 King Taharqa

King Taharqa

    The Panthers Quarterback

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,774 posts
  • LocationBobcat Country

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:05 AM

Doubt it. I think if he was serious about selling we would have heard something by now. I just think he's dumping salary and conceding 2010 to show support to his owner buddies on labor issues. Richardson is an aristocrat, he's gonna go with the crowd on major issues like this.

#4 Murph

Murph

    Joe Cool

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,886 posts
  • LocationRound about here

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:11 AM

Just curious, I understand what PSL's are but if there is a lockout in 2011 do the fans have any legal recourse to get some money back for the games missed or at least some kind of credit applied to the next season?

Plus, forget the legal reasons, wouldn't be horrible PR to not give them something in return?

#5 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,047 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:19 AM

Just curious, I understand what PSL's are but if there is a lockout in 2011 do the fans have any legal recourse to get some money back for the games missed or at least some kind of credit applied to the next season?

Plus, forget the legal reasons, wouldn't be horrible PR to not give them something in return?



The PSL owners just would not be paying for the 2011 tickets.

#6 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,047 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:23 AM

Doubt it. I think if he was serious about selling we would have heard something by now. I just think he's dumping salary and conceding 2010 to show support to his owner buddies on labor issues. Richardson is an aristocrat, he's gonna go with the crowd on major issues like this.



Richardson is being extremely intelligent (from a business perspective) with what he is doing.

He is taking this opportunity to dump over-priced and aging veterans without any cap implications. He is chosing not to be a player in overpaying in one of the worst FA classes in the past decade.

He is looking to stay lean and flexible. Remember that when the cap is re-instated (once a new CBA is reached), all of these RFA's that were tendered will become UFA. The teams signing overpriced players now will be in cap hell. The ones who don't wil lbe able to make plays in a much better FA class.

The fact is that Kemo, Lewis, Diggs, and Jake WERE NOT impact players.

Jake has lost it.

Kemo is coming off a severe achilles tear and it is not going well.

Lewis was a decent rotational player, but was not starter quality on most teams.

Diggs was solid, but is one more year older and a little slower.

Brayton was solid, but can be easily replaced with the same quality guy for the vet minimum.

We are much, mouch better off long-term and are not really any worse off in the short-term.

Edited by MadHatter, 08 March 2010 - 11:27 AM.


#7 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:26 AM

<Sigh>

Surely, if JR was going to sell the team, then he would make one last push to get a Superbowl by keeping the vets etc.

What he is doing is the complete opposite.

In my opinion he is using this season to start the beginning of the 'Steelers' model. We will rarely make a splash in the free agency, more we will use it to get cheap misused players.

Then we will go about creating a scheme that is set for years to come, meaning players that are drafted to the team will have individual roles tailored to it. This is a long term plan, one which clearly makes a very sustainable football team.

#8 PantherProfessor

PantherProfessor

    Fingers Crossed

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 413 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:31 AM

Richardson is being extremely intelligent (from a business perspective) with what he is doing.

He is taking this opportunity to dump over-priced and aging veterans without any cap implications. He is chosing not to be a player in overpaying in one of the worst FA classes in the past decade.

He is looking to stay lean and flexible. Remember that when the cap is re-instated (once a new CBA is reached), all of these RFA's that were tendered will become UFA. The teams signing overpriced players now will be in cap hell. The ones who don't wil lbe able to make plays in a much better FA class.

The fact is that Kemo, Lewis, Digg, and Jake WERE NOT impact players.

Jake has lost it.

Kemo is coming off a severe achilles tear and it is not going well.

Lewis was a decent rotational player, but was not starter quality on most teams.

Diggs was solid, but is one more year older and a little slower.

Brayton was solid, but can be easily replaced with the same quality guy for the vet minimum.

We are much, mouch better off long-term and are not really any worse off in the short-term.

well said. My only concern is that the team is making too many holes to fill in the off-season to be competitive. There is no way to fill every need we have through the draft and through what is left of the FA market. we now need starters, not backups.

#9 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,047 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:35 AM

well said. My only concern is that the team is making too many holes to fill in the off-season to be competitive. There is no way to fill every need we have through the draft and through what is left of the FA market. we now need starters, not backups.


I agree that this strategy has a higher risk than some would like. We are replacing aging and declining players....with younger, faster, hungier players that are already in our system.

Talent wise, I think we will be better (except for Pep). The risk resides in jetisoning veteran leadership. This is sometimes undervalued.

I don't think JR is mailing in next season. I think he is taking a calculated risk that will definitely pay off in the long run...and might not hurt us in the short run.

#10 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,907 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:36 AM

1. JR's sons are now out of the picture, who will interit the team?


They are no longer employees but they still have their share of ownership, I think 20% each. It's not a matter of who will inherite the team but which son will get the amount of shares that will make him the owner. Could even be equal ownership.

2. JR has had some serious health issues of late, and maybe the stress of the team is becoming too much for him. add on the labor agreement issues and that is a lot to handle.


By all accounts, JR is one of the ones spear heading the labor issues. No doubt that his health has declined but if it was a real problem I think he would have just taken a back seat in the negociation process.

3. Fox and co. in a "lame duck" situation, meaning a new owner can start with a clean slate if a sale was to take place. new coach and GM to pick as they wish.


Hurney's contract ends May 1, 2010 as compared to Fox's that ends in March of 2011. If JR wanted to give a new owner the opportunity to pick his own GM, the sale would have to take place within the next two months.

4. Uncertainty at QB. These guys are normally the face of your franchise, yes Jake's time here was done. But, as intrenched as he was with this team's short history, it was a tough move to make. Even keeping him around as a back-up would have been suitable, and Jake seemed ok with that in his farewell speech. But for a possible new owner, his salary and productivity did not match and would be a hard thing to sell someone on. Again, a new owner could have a new coach, and QB to start fresh if they desired.


In all honesty, any new owner isn't going to care about player salaries or who the GM and coach are and what their salaries look like. Buying an NFL is a business move. If the team makes money, a new owner isn't going to care about the details of the football operation as much as he is going to care about the bottom line.

5. Recent roster purge. Yes, most of these guys probably needed to go, and i agree with the moves for the most part. But, this also cleans the books of any high salary players, and makes the roster flexible for future re-signings or trades. I also wonder if this has made our defense flexible to the point of where a 3-4 defense could be installed by adding a few different players along the D-line.


The problem here is that this wouldn't be done for a new owner. The reasoning here would be that it would make the team more valuable, thus increasing the total value of the business. But considering my other statements above, I don't see that being the reason for the cuts.

6. Looming lockout in 2011. Is JR interested in losing that much money on a small market team if the lockout was to happen? could this also be a good time for a team to change ownership since there is no football?


Something to understand about the lockout that most people don't. A lockout will only happen if the PLAYERS lockout. The owners, as employers, don't need a CBA to continue operating. If the players do lockout, the owners have the right under federal law to continue operating their business as is but leaving the NFLPA the right to strike. If the players strike, then they don't get paid their current contracts and the owners will still get paid any TV contracts. The only thing the networks would be able to do is sue the players in order to recoup the money they paid the NFL, which wouldn't happen but just saying. JR would be looking at making a huge profit in 2011 and selling the team wouldn't make sense at all.

#11 PantherProfessor

PantherProfessor

    Fingers Crossed

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 413 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:42 AM

good input madhatter and mountainpantherfan, again, i dont think this is a logical solution to whats going on. but it is an interesting spin on the situation.

good info on the lockout, havent seen it explained that way.

#12 Murph

Murph

    Joe Cool

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,886 posts
  • LocationRound about here

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:43 AM

The PSL owners just would not be paying for the 2011 tickets.


Aren't the licensing fees from the seat owners due before the season begins?

#13 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,047 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:46 AM

Aren't the licensing fees from the seat owners due before the season begins?


You are not paying a licensing fee each year. You paid that at the time you purchased the PSL. The yearly gee is a ticket purchase.

I could see us in a situation where we paid for the tickets and then the amount was credited toward the following year's tickets.

Still would suck because you would be out your cash for a full year. I bet there would be a legal remedy if they tried this.

#14 Murph

Murph

    Joe Cool

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,886 posts
  • LocationRound about here

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:49 AM

Yeah I meant to say tickets instead of license. Still money is money and a lot of people will be unhappy.

If I was a PSL owner and lockout occured I would hope that no games are played instead of games played with scrubs like in the 80's . Now that would be a waste of money for the ticket holders.

#15 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,907 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:55 AM

You are not paying a licensing fee each year. You paid that at the time you purchased the PSL. The yearly gee is a ticket purchase.

I could see us in a situation where we paid for the tickets and then the amount was credited toward the following year's tickets.

Still would suck because you would be out your cash for a full year. I bet there would be a legal remedy if they tried this.


PSL owners would still have to pay for there tickets. As I said, the owners will proceed forward with football going on without a CBA in place. The players would have to choose to go on strike. Just like the networks, really the only way they could recoup any money lost would be to sue the NFLPA.

With that being said, I doubt any owner will force their PSL owners to pay for games not played without some type of reimbursment. That's just too much bad PR. But I wouldn't count out this situation going to the point where you are paying regular priced tickets to watch a bunch of replacements playing.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.